BEX III

Since BEX III is a hot topic of discussion after Mel Westbrook and other's comments last night, I'm re-publishing here comments Charlie Mas posted back in August on the BEX III issue.

The project list put forward by the staff includes:

* Hamilton Middle School - total renovation - $73.4 million

* South Shore - total new construction of a building that could be a K-8 or a 6-8 - $64.7 million

* Denny / Sealth - total new construction of Denny and some shared facilities, total renovation of Sealth classroom building $125 million

* Nathan Hale - total renovation - $77.6 million

* Ingraham - replace one building - $22 million

* Rainier Beach - new auto shop - $500 thousand

These projects were chosen using priorities adopted by the Board in Chapter 3 of the Facilities Master Plan in January. The Board has already committed to the Hamilton project and the Southshore project in votes taken earlier this year.

In addition, BEX III will include:

* Water piping - $10 million

* Indoor Air quality improvements - $10 million

* Synthetic turf replacements - $6 million

* Technology upgrades - $42 million

* BEX IV planning - $2 million

* Program overhead - $48 million

* Financing costs - $17 million

*************
See the following links for more info:

School building levy will be on ballot

http://www.seattleschools.org/area/facilities/SEPA_Addendum.pdf (district document)

Seattle Post-Intelligencer: Sound Off (a post by a frequent commenter on this blog)

A NEW HOME FOR THE NEW SCHOOL AT SOUTH SHORE (page 2 in newsletter)

Comments

Beth Bakeman said…
With a total of 481.2 million, I realize the 48 million overhead is just a standard 10% overhead used in budgeting, but it still looks like an obscence amount of money when listed this way.
9/22/06, 2:22 PM
Anonymous said…
You might look at things like water piping, indoor air quality improvements, synthetic turf replacements, and technology upgrades and think "Hey, aren't those more BTA sort of projects than BEX sort of projects?" and you would be right.

The current BTA is fully appropriated and there won't be another one for a while. These things can't wait, so they went onto BEX III.

Of course, if the District can re-allocate the current BTA to use it on the capital costs of closures and consolidations instead of capital expenditures at the schools they are closing, why can't they re-allocate other BTA money to cover these expenses?

Moreover, how can the District avoid replacing the plumbing at Pinehurst just because it won't be a school anymore? If the District is going to lease the space out, don't they need to replace the plumbing for the tenant?

There may well be absolutely plausible explanations and answers to these questions. I'd just like to hear them.

Perhaps I will send them into the feedback email address.
9/23/06, 8:15 AM
Beth Bakeman said…
Mammatoni, it was nice meeting you in person tonight. I think, from what Charlie said in a later comment, that the plumbing needs to be repaired at Pinehurst and a new roof on Viewlands because the district plans to lease or sell the property, and so still needs to perform scheduled maintenance and repairs to get maximum dollars.
9/27/06, 10:12 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Tuesday Open Thread

The speaker list is up for the Board meeting tomorrow; not as packed as I thought with just four people on the waitlist. The majority of the speakers are speaking on high school boundaries (with several wanting to talk about Ballard High). There are only three of us speaking about the Green Dot resolution asking the City to not grant the zoning departures that Green Dot has requested.  It's me, long-time watchdog, Chris Jackins, and the head of the Washington State Charter Schools Association, Patrick D'Amelio.  (I knew Mr. D'Amelio when he headed the Alliance for Education and Big Brothers and Big Sisters; he's a stand-up guy.)
Read more

Who Is A. J. Crabill (and why should you care)?

Why You Should Care Mr. Crabill has found quite the acolyte in Director Chandra Hampson. In the course of discussions over SOFG, she says his name over and over, "A.J .says we...." Now that's not too surprising given the direction the district is heading and that it is Mr. Crabill's work with the Council of Great City Schools is how we got here. But it appears that Mr. Crabill is working very closely with Hampson and we know she wields some amount of power over the majority of the Board. Mr. Crabill is going to continue to work with the Board as SOFG is instituted in SPS. In fact, his role may become more public as it did at one SPS Board meeting in the spring where he was on the phone during the meeting and suggested the Board stop the meeting to "self-reflect." I also noticed that in a district in South Carolina, when things weren't going to plan, he blamed the Board for not following SOFG to the letter. Look for that to happen here if Board members w
Read more

Why the Majority of the Board Needs to be Filled with New Faces

This may only be a partial list of reasons; please, add anything else in the comments. The deadline to file to run for the Board is May 19th. Entire Board Majority NOT vetting the Superintendent in any way, shape or form. Even the Seattle Times thought that was wrong.  It was just absolute hubris and it was wrong. For the second time in just over a year , board members voted to negotiate a superintendent contract during a special meeting with no opportunity for public comment. This time, they showed an even deeper disregard for their responsibilities as public servants: Aborting a national search for a new superintendent and denying Interim Superintendent Brent Jones a chance to show students, parents and taxpayers that, indeed, he is the best person for the job. Government bodies can’t fast-forward through transparent processes just because they think they know the right answer. One other odd thing about the hiring of Brent Jones - most permanent SPS superintendent contracts ar
Read more